Neighbours’ ‘tit for tat’ row over dog fouling led to seven-day trial
A sheriff warned neighbours in a long-running “tit for tat” dispute not to waste more court time or public money in prolonging the “whole sorry episode”.
Sheriff Robert Frazer issued the stern message at Lerwick Sheriff Court today (Friday) following a seven-day trial, which had been spread over several months.
He delivered a “not proven” verdict for 62-year-old Quendale man, Terry Williamson, who had been accused of stalking his neighbour, Heather Obern.
Williamson was alleged to have caused Mrs Obern “fear and alarm” by taking photos and videos of her and others as they walked past his house. He was also accused of following her in his car and loitering near her home.
Sheriff Frazer said a seven-day summary trial to deal with a single charge was “unusual” in itself, let alone for a case stemming from an old neighbourly dispute over dog fouling.
He noted a previous trial – in which the defendant and complainer roles were reversed – had ended in similar circumstances.
Sheriff Frazer said the long-running row was just “tit for tat” allegations and counter allegations.
He said the families could no longer “see the wood for the trees” in their ongoing argument. He suggested they all get on with their lives rather than taking up any more valuable police and court time.
Having heard of “further allegations in the pipeline” the sheriff urged all involved to bring the “whole sorry episode” to an end.
During the trial, the court heard how Mrs Obern had claimed the accused’s alleged campaign of intimidation had destroyed her life.
Sheriff Frazer agreed Mrs Obern was “clearly upset” when presenting her evidence, but also remarked that it had not stopped her walking past Williamson’s home, sometimes several times a day.
The court heard she had at times been seen to be “skipping and laughing” as she went.
He said the evidence from her son Kevin Obern, which included an account of an altercation with Williamson, had been delivered in a “somewhat confrontational manner”.
The sheriff said the diary entries of Rae Tulloch, a dog walking friend of Mr Obern, which were supposed to document Williamson’s behaviour, were hard to read, heavily redacted and conflicted with other accounts.
Sheriff Frazer was “not impressed” with Williamson’s evidence either, describing him as “rambling and obsessive”.
Williamson tried to argue he had taken the videos under the advice of police and council officers to serve as evidence that he was a victim of harassment.
However, Sheriff Frazer said he did not consider it a reasonable explanation.
He questioned whether Williamson’s persistent complaints to the police about his neighbours were appropriate.
The only witness he found compelling was Williamson’s wife, Marilyn, who he said was “calm and measured” in her evidence, delivered from a diary, which was “tight, unredacted and chronological”.
While he described the behaviour heard by the court as “petty, childish, selfish and vindictive” he said it did not amount to a crime.
Despite his concerns over the length and expense of the seven-day trial, Sheriff Frazer said neither the police nor the procurator fiscal were at fault.
